Bach made music about jesus and the christian god not because he liked to but that was his age,

Please, prove how you know this. SPECIFIC FACTS. Direct quotes from the composer? Things he has written or said that should make you believe that?

everyone believed in jesus and the christian god back then, it was as common as believing in science today. There are many different definitions you can give to the word god afterall, in its time it was an omnipotent idol.. wich makes some of bach's comments rather odd.

What comments are those?

When you look into bach's comments on his music, you can unveil a whole different context to his words.

Give specific examples. What comments did he make?

Its pretty convincing that bach did not make music for god but found god in music,

You're onto something here. But then you went and ruined it by saying:

and with god i mean the logic behind music, the logic behind architecture, the logic behind alchemy, all being the same thing; the divine measure. No doubt he was so absorbed by this.

No doubt? Because I doubt. You have provided no FACTS. No EVIDENCE. You simply make statements and expect that we should believe them without you proving them.

A slight aside: I can tell you're not religious, neither am I. But don't let that cloud your perception of Bach. He was a devoutly religious man, and that's just how it is. He wrote his music to the glory of God.

Its useless to discuss this with you, you base yourself off sources like wikipedia containing a incomplete reality, just like when people argue about darwin or gods in general.
I am as minimalistic with the context of reality as i am when it concerns music, im not saying im right but everything ive come across aimed in the direction of what im convinced of now.

That wasn't from wikipedia, it's from one of the most esteemed books on the lives of the great composers, a book which I happen to own.

If you want to believe bach only made music because he wanted to glorify some god, be my guest.
I do not.

And I will believe that, because of what Bach has said and what he has written. You may believe what you like based on your own thoughts. You have made Bach into some God-like persona who you glorify beyond reason. You do not hear facts about him, you only hear your own schizophrenic opinions of him, and thus you have painted him into exactly the person you WANT him to be.

Which is it. Was Bach a mathe-musical genius without peer, or did he merely follow in the musical footsteps of his time period. It cannot be both. Either he created music solely out of mathematics, logic, and every other source you've mentioned in this diatribe and was the very source of everything which is "right" about music, or he made music for "the Christian God" because it was the thing to do in his time period. It has been mine and other's observance that those who think themselves the only truth in the room, as you are making Bach out to be and have shown yourself time again to be a member of, rarely uphold the "status quo" and hold to any conventional mindset.

So, which was it? There's quite a heavy weight of evidence that Bach was a very devout Lutheran, but you've yet to produce, and I've yet to find, any evidence of the statements you've made over and over again concerning Bach's background and musical compositional system, ie. the Calamaistr "Fractals and Math" music theory.

At 11/30/09 02:10 AM, InGenius wrote:
Which is it. Was Bach a mathe-musical genius without peer, or did he merely follow in the musical footsteps of his time period. It cannot be both. Either he created music solely out of mathematics, logic, and every other source you've mentioned in this diatribe and was the very source of everything which is "right" about music, or he made music for "the Christian God" because it was the thing to do in his time period. It has been mine and other's observance that those who think themselves the only truth in the room, as you are making Bach out to be and have shown yourself time again to be a member of, rarely uphold the "status quo" and hold to any conventional mindset.

So, which was it? There's quite a heavy weight of evidence that Bach was a very devout Lutheran, but you've yet to produce, and I've yet to find, any evidence of the statements you've made over and over again concerning Bach's background and musical compositional system, ie. the Calamaistr "Fractals and Math" music theory.

His math theory is certainly with some merit. However, even among scholars it remains a theory, open only to speculation, and impossible to prove correct.

From the same book I quoted earlier,

"There is no music in the literature that has Bach's kind of rightness, of inevitability, of intellicence, of logical sequences of notes."

However, this describes the nature of his writing, not his purpose. He wrote his music to the Glory of God, and yes, there is a sense of logic to his compositions. But that is simply a means to an end. Ultimately, Bach was writing music for the sake of creating an emotional connection with his Creator.

In recent years, a good deal has been written about Bach's use of musical symbolism. Albert Schweitzer was one of the first proponents of the idea. Most of Schweitzer's ideas along this line are discounted today, though it is still a parlor game among a handful of Bach specialists to read numerical symbolism into Bach's music

Finding math in music is an easy task, the very system of Hz tones we base the diatonic system from is based on the math of doubling, overtones, and geometric progression. But that doesn't mean that because all notes are based on maths that all composers write based on math. I merely want Calamaistr to finally show evidence to back any of his claims in any of the myriad threads he's derailed with his pomposity.

These are the closest links I could find supporting even the mention of fractals next to Bach, and none makes the claim that he intentionally wrote pieces based on fractal form. In fact, the first claims that a large contingent of classical compositions is written in the Cantor fractal format with tied bar sections, which would mean that Bach was no more or less innovative, concerning fractal music composition, than his peers, predecessors, or followers.

This one opens with "Johann Sebastian Bach surely did not have fractals in mind when he composed six suites for solo cello several centuries ago. " How much clearer can the researchers of these papers be than to point out that it was not the reasoning behind his compositions?

Every other article I looked up referenced back to the paper this article was written about, so I still am left with no evidence and certainly no proof that Bach's compositions were written from the math of fractals or any other mathematical analysis. Frankly, in fact, I think it's a rude assumption to make thinking that Bach wrote music from lifeless equations and numbers rather than from his own ability. If you want talentless, using solely logic, numbers and mathematical premise to write music takes the soul from music, the life and verve, in my opinion. Stating that Bach wrote his pieces based on some formula would mean his music was formulaic, which in the music world is akin to a movie plotline being formulaic. Formula is what pop music is written on. A more nonsensical claim has never been made, again in my opinion.

At 11/30/09 12:20 PM, InGenius wrote:
Finding math in music is an easy task, the very system of Hz tones we base the diatonic system from is based on the math of doubling, overtones, and geometric progression. But that doesn't mean that because all notes are based on maths that all composers write based on math. I merely want Calamaistr to finally show evidence to back any of his claims in any of the myriad threads he's derailed with his pomposity.

These are the closest links I could find supporting even the mention of fractals next to Bach, and none makes the claim that he intentionally wrote pieces based on fractal form. In fact, the first claims that a large contingent of classical compositions is written in the Cantor fractal format with tied bar sections, which would mean that Bach was no more or less innovative, concerning fractal music composition, than his peers, predecessors, or followers.

This one opens with "Johann Sebastian Bach surely did not have fractals in mind when he composed six suites for solo cello several centuries ago. " How much clearer can the researchers of these papers be than to point out that it was not the reasoning behind his compositions?

Every other article I looked up referenced back to the paper this article was written about, so I still am left with no evidence and certainly no proof that Bach's compositions were written from the math of fractals or any other mathematical analysis. Frankly, in fact, I think it's a rude assumption to make thinking that Bach wrote music from lifeless equations and numbers rather than from his own ability. If you want talentless, using solely logic, numbers and mathematical premise to write music takes the soul from music, the life and verve, in my opinion. Stating that Bach wrote his pieces based on some formula would mean his music was formulaic, which in the music world is akin to a movie plotline being formulaic. Formula is what pop music is written on. A more nonsensical claim has never been made, again in my opinion.

Ive never glorified bach, i used him as an example, you said it yourself there were more.
I already explained it was no 'original idea'.
I dont have all the answers, i base my conviction on what ive read of bach and what ive heard from bach. Listen to his works while looking at his works to see the patterns he used, familiarise yourself with that, and for the love of god look up the rosslyn motet to understand why i am convinced of the hidden dimension behind music, and with it being convinced bach knew of this among others.

It is as much a presumption to state bach only made music to the glory of god, his comments show another context, thats what ive been trying to say.

-architecture is frozen music
-There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself
-Where there is devotional music, God is always at hand with His gracious presence.
-My masters are strange folk with very little care for music in them.

Now again when you change the context of 'god' to the divine measure it makes much more sense.

Dont forget some of his comments are logical for its time, if he had said anything else he wouldve been hung from a bridge.

I believe, that bach did not believe in god as an omnipotent idol, but as a hidden logic present within all the arts, i do in no way base this off bach alone, there are so many that made me dig into this theory.

What some of you are saying is: because this book stated that bach believed in god as an omnipotent idol, be as it may that he was very familiar with the math behind music he made his music soley to the glory of god.

That is as much a theory, and there are others who disagree with that, do i need to become some kind of foreman on this? No thanks.

You either change the context according to what is there or you keep the conventional one to what is there, eventually it depends on your level of perception (goes for everything) (oh and im sure someone is going to read that in a way i didnt mean it, again)

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

Cymatics? That's your basis for a theory on Bach's work? You've got to be kidding. Do you also want to throw the Templars or Priory of Sion into the mix, maybe a dash of JFK and the grassy knoll? If the Rosslyn/Cymatics tie-in is your basis for laying the claim of supreme musical understanding at Bach's feet, then you've barked up the wrong tree. Cymatics is nothing more than the unmathematically capable being amazed at a repeating waveform interaction.

At certain frequencies and their corresponding doubles, the waveform interaction boundary between standing waves interacting on a solid surface can be seen using a material indicator to form geometric shapes of a certain order. These shapes grow more numerous and more complex in their interaction as the frequency rises. There are also transitive patterns created by sympathetic under- and overtones at higher frequencies.

In the list of scientific research into Cymatics, you'll note Da Vinci, Galileo, Robert Hook all researched resonance but not actual cymatics. No, Cladni was the first person to truly explore cymatic patterns.

But the best part of that video...comparing the Cymascope of Beethoven, a classical genius, and Pink Floyd, prog rockers. Will wonders never cease, all music reacts to cymatics, not merely that of classical geniuses. So again, how is it that your theories and all of their mix-and-match of science and wild conjecture make the statement that only a minor handful of composers, specifically those you continue to uphold as the only true composers with "talent"? You're pompous belief that only your own theories are true, only your own heroes are above reproach, and only your own opinions count is a recurring theme that I am, quite frankly, tired of seeing in threads that have nothing to do with them. Start your own thread next time rather than derailing another one and forcing someone to do the research to hopefully give you some common sense.

PS: Over Half of all the Cymatics websites I found online are trying to sell Cymatics videos, conspiracy theory pamphlets, and expensive cymascopes. Where I come from, that means this is more pseudo-science than actual science still. Snake oil sales usually come with the snake oil.

"Despite the fact that when the final notes of the Motet had been played the chapel had resisted, contrary to the expectations of many, giving up even one of its long-speculated secrets, the commercial success of the composition had been assured, and the product made available to shoppers around the world."

That pretty much says it all. Rosslyn Motet played in A=432Hz inside the chapel, no secrets. Nail, meet coffin. Coffin, nail. Thanks.

PS: Over Half of all the Cymatics websites I found online are trying to sell Cymatics videos, conspiracy theory pamphlets, and expensive cymascopes. Where I come from, that means this is more pseudo-science than actual science still. Snake oil sales usually come with the snake oil.

Ive never seen or read anything branded cymatics, ive never been on any cymatics website, what i saw the man in the video talk about does seem to be about the same thing, i didnt watch the whole vid though, what youre doing right now is trying to find everything you can think of as an arguement to fight what i said, you are a forum gladiator thats what, you dont even want to think about these things you want to stay safe in your conventional world, and dont be predictable and call me a hypocrite because ive dug deep into this and i have plenty of reference and am in all my right to believe in what i believe, use it as an arguement and even build upon it. So how about you just stop responding because from now on im not even going to read a single post with your name on it anymore thanks to that ridiculisation if you cant argue in a sophisticated manner and have to lower yourself to the typical 'i call tinfoil hats to the discussion' methods.

But the best part of that video...comparing the Cymascope of Beethoven, a classical genius, and Pink Floyd, prog rockers. Will wonders never cease, all music reacts to cymatics, not merely that of classical geniuses. So again, how is it that your theories and all of their mix-and-match of science and wild conjecture make the statement that only a minor handful of composers, specifically those you continue to uphold as the only true composers with "talent"?

Because they conciously executed it in their work and the movie composers we were talking about do not, you can hear that, its a sense of complications, a sense of minimalistic choreography.

Im fed up with you now anyway, all you do is use a bunch of nice words to talk down on me, im defending my confidence with plenty arguements and you just compare them with something else.
You completely ignore everything i say this way so why bother continuing a discussion thats not there.

It is 'you that is stuck believing your own verse , i shed new light.. im here with a tested theory or did you think i just one day woke up and thought to myself 'know what everything is wrong and im right'? I have more expertises that allowed me to connect the dots such as the origins of theisms, quantum physics, the physics of concienceness engineering, relative dimension. It might be incomplete, it might be slightly off, but it does go somewhere, that is 'certain. if you cant handle that, and the whole musical scientific world has been discussing things like these for ages, then maybe you should look for another hobby.. go play golf or something.

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

"Despite the fact that when the final notes of the Motet had been played the chapel had resisted, contrary to the expectations of many, giving up even one of its long-speculated secrets, the commercial success of the composition had been assured, and the product made available to shoppers around the world."

That pretty much says it all. Rosslyn Motet played in A=432Hz inside the chapel, no secrets. Nail, meet coffin. Coffin, nail. Thanks.

And again, you completely ignore the whole thing but wave it away with a single quoted text that was obviously written without any knowledge of what this was about, it was extremely opiniated.

This is truly the last time i respond to you, just because this needs clarification and it was right below the other post anyway.

The rosslyn motet is based on the graphic blocks of the rosslyn chapel, each block corresponds with a tone of sound, this has been done with a tone playing beneath a glass plate with sand on it, the sand taking the respective shape and the shape then linked to the block, done with all blocks this spelled out in pattern a motet.

That is what i was talking about, the dimension behind the music.

It has NOTHING to do with dan brown and his book/movies. It is NOT commercial, its a archeological and intellectual treasure.

Dont bother responding.

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

"what i saw the man in the video talk about does seem to be about the same thing, i didnt watch the whole vid though"

"and dont be predictable and call me a hypocrite because ive dug deep into this and i have plenty of reference and am in all my right to believe in what i believe, use it as an arguement and even build upon it."

How deep can one dig when they won't even finish the video of a noted "scientist" in the field of Cymatics yet they have all of the information they need. Again, where is this reference. Not one time have you put a single reference on a post, thread or this entire forum, from any of your many rants about music. Again and again I've posted counterpoints with reference to your ramblings. Yet I am the "forum gladiator" and you're the illuminated researcher and knowledgebase of all things musical? No, sir, I am not talking down to you with my postts, I am trying to counter your inane ramblings so you don't end up deluding some other poor soul into following in your footsteps and wasting their time with your constant flow of diarrhea at the mouth.

I'm tired of the misinformation young musicians are getting when they come in and see your posts. You absolutely destroyed the Mastering thread with your completely off-topic rants, and this thread is nothing but Cymatics mish-mashed with your personal vendetta against all composers, save your own personal heroes. If you don't want to reply to me then at least be truthful and honest and state the real reason: I've posted counters to your argument and you have absolutely no references to post in return.

As for calling "tin-foil hats", yes, I did indeed do that. If you read the entire page on the last link I posted, you'd note why. The end of that article ties a large contingent of the Rosslyn fanatics to the Sauniere group, as in Priory of Sion. And the original Rosslyn Motet creator's father believed that playing the notes on period instruments at period tuning would open a secret door or give secret illumination to those present in the Lady's Chapel. Amazing. That doesn't sound tinfoily at all. No. <sarcasm>

I really just don't see now classics verses music today are truely different. We can talk about way-over-my-head-btw stuff all you want. But really, isn't this argument really just a comparison of those to play/compose by ear, and those that play/compose using theory and logic? Because it's a mix of both today.

Actually, he's talking about pitches which cause a resonating body to create resonation patterns in a medium, such as sand, salt or a viscous body. It's an interesting aspect of sound and science, but not the Holy Grail of compositional theory as Cala supports and quantifies all composers. I have read and researched the subject a bit in my time, so I knew what he was proposing the moment I saw the Rosslyn reference, but he's taken it to mean something which the research into Cymatics has never supported, which is that the tones which create these geometric figures are the most important tones in music theory and those using these sequences have a grasp of some fundamentally higher class of music than any others. It's rubbish like dodecaphonous music being perfection, or Baroque music being the purest form of classical music, etc. etc. Every few years someone comes along who thinks they have a corner on the market of musical innovations, or they found the historic "perfection" of music. Pure garbage.

As for pitting playing by ear versus playing by theory and logic, they both have their benefits and drawbacks. I played by ear for many years, am a self-taught pianist, guitarist and percussionist. Learned flute through school stage and marching band. I have had courses in theory and history of music. I've been producing music for going on 16 years off-and-on now. I can read music and score music as well. While I am a Hip-hop producer I have also produced in the Dance, Trance, Ambient and Techno genres, and I dabble in contemporary orchestral music now though it is definitely not my strength. All of this I do by ear because that's how I am wired. I could use theory, progressions, harmony, melody and counter-melody, logic and math, any of these systems or all of them if I chose. But it's not how I feel most comfortable.

Frankly I am a firm believer that all of the rigid structure of logic and theory would drain my music of life. This is not a theory that ALL music made in this manner is drained of life, mind you, merely an opinion on my own music. I make no such wild claims that all music and all musicians must follow my beliefs. But that said, I am also a very analytical person when it comes to other endeavors. I read theoretical physics books by Michio Kaku and Riemann's Hypothesis, and other higher maths books for fun. I majored in Marketing in college and absolutely love statistics concerning purchasing patterns amongst demographics split by different variables. But to me, these are all vibrantly lifeless and sterile things, which music should not be. So I don't make mathematical progressions in my music, at least not knowingly, and I don't use set-in-stone progressions from a book or from theory. But again, that's just my own personal compositional style.

Actually, he's talking about pitches which cause a resonating body to create resonation patterns in a medium, such as sand, salt or a viscous body. It's an interesting aspect of sound and science, but not the Holy Grail of compositional theory as Cala supports and quantifies all composers.

At 12/1/09 04:34 PM, nathanallenpinard wrote:
I really just don't see now classics verses music today are truely different. We can talk about way-over-my-head-btw stuff all you want. But really, isn't this argument really just a comparison of those to play/compose by ear, and those that play/compose using theory and logic? Because it's a mix of both today.

Is that really what we're talking about here?

Well playing by ear is only possible when you have some understanding to begin with of musical logic, unless you mean just making something that sounds nice instead of making something that sounds right, i think there is some difference in that. Ofcourse im not saying that impulsive music is by definition musica falsa, far from.. and i cannot stand improvised chaotic compositions but thats not what i mean. When i listen to something of hans zimmer, the problem is that everything is predictable, same with most commercial music you can hear in the so called top 50. Look i know there are people who enjoy music in a different way, and that different way has become common.
with that i mean; just listening to the primal aspects of it and 'moving the body on the rythm'. thats all great but i as a musician want to get more out of music, and there is more.. im sure we can all agree on that. I admit im a perfectionist when it comes to musical theory, and maybe that goes to far for some people here that are obviously driven by their own emotions and sentry on doctrine.

Now this topic is about terrible film scores, from my experience i stated hans zimmer is an amateur musician despite being an able composer and therefore my opinion is that his film scores are terrible, lets keep it at that because im a bit tired of all this and im not even going to read whatever that bag of air has to say this time anyway.

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

whatever he said he cannot speak for me, besides everything has room for science.
I already explained that the logic behind music is the logic behind nature, and the logic behind math.
this 'allows' for far more intellectual creation of music, it is not a 'rule but id say it does differ the men from the boys.

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

At 12/1/09 05:03 PM, Calamaistr wrote:
Now this topic is about terrible film scores, from my experience i stated hans zimmer is an amateur musician despite being an able composer and therefore my opinion is that his film scores are terrible, lets keep it at that because im a bit tired of all this and im not even going to read whatever that bag of air has to say this time anyway.

So wait a sec...From your experience and opinion you think that Hans Zimmer is an amateur musician. That's all we were asking for...for you to say that your facts on Film Musicans is nothing more than personal preference.

*slaps own head

lol.
Well... at least we getting somewhere.

Urm...I have one bad movie score...sorta. It was the X-filesScore - Truth and Light. Now, the music was great, and fitted the scenes very well, however on purchasing the score it got irratating how I couldn't appreciate the score by Mark Snow because they added effin Mulder and Scully as well as other characters randomly yapping on it, in and out of tracks.

At 12/1/09 05:03 PM, Calamaistr wrote:
Now this topic is about terrible film scores, from my experience i stated hans zimmer is an amateur musician despite being an able composer and therefore my opinion is that his film scores are terrible, lets keep it at that because im a bit tired of all this and im not even going to read whatever that bag of air has to say this time anyway.

So wait a sec...From your experience and opinion you think that Hans Zimmer is an amateur musician. That's all we were asking for...for you to say that your facts on Film Musicans is nothing more than personal preference.

No thats twisting my words, my experience is not 'my opinion' its 'a wide range tested theory i refer to'.
my 'opinion' is that his film scores are terrible, not that he is a amateur musician, he is a amateur musician no matter what my opinion of his film scores would be based on the divine measure.

Original, classical and retro videogame music composer. (No longer take project clients from newgrounds but if you need a track or two from what ive got pm me.)

At 12/2/09 11:54 AM, Calamaistr wrote:
No thats twisting my words, my experience is not 'my opinion' its 'a wide range tested theory i refer to'.
my 'opinion' is that his film scores are terrible, not that he is a amateur musician, he is a amateur musician no matter what my opinion of his film scores would be based on the divine measure.

Your experience is representative of your opinion, because all you have is your experience, not anothers, therefore all you can judge on is what you think is correct, due to the fact you think it, and believe it, this causes it to be opinion, not fact. If I think I can fly, and I really do think I can sore in the wind, does not make it fact.

You have neglected to understand that there is no way you can state credible facts on who is good and who is bad. There is no scoreboard on a musicians sheet. All you have is preference, and it's all we have too. I think Zimmer is a superb musician, who can simulate a moment in time purely with the use of sound. That to me, makes him a musician because he illustrates what we want to hear perfectly.